1909] GIRAULT —CHALCIDOID PARASITES 83 
The species of Coccophagus mentioned by J. G. Sanders (1907) in writing of Hulecan- 
tum nigrofasciatum (Pergande) is most probably this parasite and the ‘‘chaleid fly” 
recorded by A. B. Gahan (1907) from this same host in Maryland was later deter- 
mined as lecanw (A. B. Gahan, in litt., June 25th, 1908), making the first specific 
record of this host, here published for the first time. I did not meet with it in con- 
nection with the host under consideration in Ilinois, but during 1908 reared it from 
young Pulvinaria innumerabilis (Rathvon) at Urbana, July 26th. 
This coccid parasite is widely distributed in the United States having been reared 
in the following states — New York, Illinois, Iowa, District of Columbia, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Colorado and Ohio. Of these, Maryland 
is a new locality. It has also been collected at St. Vincent, Windward Islands, West 
Indies (Howard, Riley, 1896) and has just been recorded from Ontario, Canada. 
What is known of the biology of this species is recorded in Putnam (1879) and 
Howard (1881, 1895, 1900). A bibliography of the species is appended. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF Coccophagus lecani (Fitch). 
1859. Fitch, Asa. Fifth report on the noxious and other insects of the State of New 
York. Made to the ete. Albany, pp. 25-26. 
Original description as Platygaster lecanii; host “ Lecaniwm quercitronis.”’ 
1878a. Smith, Emily A. American naturalist, Philadelphia, XII, p. 661, footnote; 
fig. 6, a—b. 
Redescription as new under the name Coccophagus lecanii; host, female 
“Lecanium acericorticis.” Figure of female and pupa. 
b. Idem. The Maple-tree Bark-louse — Lecanium acericola Walsh and Riley. 
Seventh report of the State entomologist on the noxious and beneficial insects 
of the State of Hlinois. (2nd annual report of Cyrus Thomas). Spring- 
field, pp. 129-130, fig. 31, a-b. | 
Description of a parasite of the forementioned coccid, quoting Fitch’s 
(1859) description and stating: 
“This description answers as far as it goes for the parasite bred on the 
acericola, but instead of it belonging to the Proctotrupidae family, it belongs 
to the Chalcididae. I therefore record it as a new species.” 
Brief description; no name really given here. Cf. de Dalla Torre (1898, 
p. 474). 
